Five questions answered on the wholesale gas price fixing allegations

Regulators are investigating claims wholesale gas prices have been manipulated by major gas companies. We answer five questions on the gas pricing fiasco.

What exactly are the allegations being made? 

Major energy companies are being accused of manipulating the wholesale price of gas in the same way banks have manipulated libor. 

Energy companies buy gas at wholesale price then sell it onto to homes and businesses. On the 26 September gas companies are alleged to have made unrealistic bids at a time when data was being collected to set the wholesale price, they area alleged to have done this in order to suit their own situation rather than making a realistic bid.

Who discovered this alleged price-fixing? 

The whistle was blown by Seth Freedman, who worked at ICIS Heren, a financial information company that publishes energy price reports.

The Guardian report that Freeman flagged up a set of suspiciously low trades he believed were designed to depress ICIS Heron’s ‘day ahead’ price on the 28th September. One trader told Freeman in regards to the range of prices quoted on the 28th September:

There's a feeling among some people that somebody's taking the piss a bit on the day-ahead index.

ICIS Heren also told the BBC it had:

Detected some unusual trading activity on the British wholesale gas market on 28 September 2012, which it reported to energy regulator Ofgem in October.

Does wholesale price manipulation affect consumer prices?

Not directly as the price is being manipulated to be lowered. Wholesale gas price makes up an average of 45 per cent of consumers bills so lowering it shouldn’t affect bills. However, it is still a damaging discovery as Freeman has explained: 

There's certainly a link. They [the power companies] are telling you: Look, in order to make our profits and cover our costs and so on, we have to give a price to retail customers which reflects the cost to us.

But if you can't trust the market at a wholesale level, it becomes a crisis of confidence. People at retail level are just thinking, "I don't trust these companies" - and it needs to be scrutinised.

What has been the response of energy providers?

The big six energy providers have all released statements denying the claims. However, some of these ‘big six’ are currently being investigated by the Financial Services Authority and Ofgem. 

What has government said?

Energy Secretary Ed Davey will make a statement in the House of Commons today, but he has already said he is extremely concerned about the allegations. 

The Treasury Secretary, Greg Clark, spoke of the seriousness of the allegations to the BBC, saying:

Any scintilla of doubt that the participants cannot be trusted has a tremendously important effect.

I think it's very straightforward. When someone breaks the law, they should be punished, and when it's as serious as this, they should be punished very severely. And it's as true for stealing through financial manipulation as it is, frankly, for breaking and entering.

Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'm far from convinced by Cameron's plans for Syria

The Prime Minister has a plan for when the bombs drop. But what about after?

In the House of Commons today, the Prime Minister set out a powerful case for Britain to join air strikes against Isil in Syria.  Isil, he argued, poses a direct threat to Britain and its people, and Britain should not be in the business of “outsourcing our security to our allies”. And while he conceded that further airstrikes alone would not be sufficient to beat Isil, he made the case for an “Isil first” strategy – attacking Isil now, while continuing to do what we can diplomatically to help secure a lasting settlement for Syria in which Assad (eventually) plays no part.

I agreed with much of David Cameron’s analysis. And no-one should doubt either the murderous barbarism of Isil in the region, or the barbarism they foment and inspire in others across the world.  But at the end of his lengthy Q&A session with MPs, I remained unconvinced that UK involvement in airstrikes in Syria was the right option. Because the case for action has to be a case for action that has a chance of succeeding.  And David Cameron’s case contained neither a plan for winning the war, nor a plan for winning the peace.

The Prime Minister, along with military experts and analysts across the world, concedes that air strikes alone will not defeat Isil, and that (as in Iraq) ground forces are essential if we want to rid Syria of Isil. But what is the plan to assemble these ground forces so necessary for a successful mission?  David Cameron’s answer today was more a hope than a plan. He referred to “70,000 Syrian opposition fighters - principally the Free Syrian Army (FSA) – with whom we can co-ordinate attacks on Isil”.

But it is an illusion to think that these fighters can provide the ground forces needed to complement aerial bombardment of Isil.  Many commentators have begun to doubt whether the FSA continues to exist as a coherent operational entity over the past few months. Coralling the myriad rebel groups into a disciplined force capable of fighting and occupying Isil territory is a heroic ambition, not a plan. And previous efforts to mobilize the rebels against Isil have been utter failures. Last month the Americans abandoned a $500m programme to train and turn 5,400 rebel fighters into a disciplined force to fight Isil. They succeeded in training just 60 fighters. And there have been incidents of American-trained fighters giving some of their US-provided equipment to the Nusra Front, an affiliate of Al Qaeda.

Why has it proven so hard to co-opt rebel forces in the fight against Isil? Because most of the various rebel groups are fighting a war against Assad, not against Isil.  Syria’s civil war is gruesome and complex, but it is fundamentally a Civil War between Assad’s forces and a variety of opponents of Assad’s regime. It would be a mistake for Britain to base a case for military action against Isil on the hope that thousands of disparate rebel forces can be persuaded to change their enemy – especially when the evidence so far is that they won’t.

This is a plan for military action that, at present, looks highly unlikely to succeed.  But what of the plan for peace? David Cameron today argued for the separation of the immediate task at hand - to strike against Isil in Syria – from the longer-term ambition of achieving a settlement in Syria and removing Assad.  But for Isil to be beaten, the two cannot be separated. Because it is only by making progress in developing a credible and internationally-backed plan for a post-Assad Syria that we will persuade Syrian Sunnis that fighting Isil will not end up helping Assad win the Civil War.  If we want not only to rely on rebel Sunnis to provide ground troops against Isil, but also provide stable governance in Isil-occupied areas when the bombing stops, progress on a settlement to Syria’s Civil War is more not less urgent.  Without it, the reluctance of Syrian Sunnis to think that our fight is their fight will undermine the chances of military efforts to beat Isil and bring basic order to the regions they control. 

This points us towards doubling down on the progress that has already been made in Vienna: working with the USA, France, Syria’s neighbours and the Gulf states, as well as Russia and Iran. We need not just a combined approach to ending the conflict, but the prospect of a post-war Syria that offers a place for those whose cooperation we seek to defeat Isil. No doubt this will strike some as insufficient in the face of the horrors perpetrated by Isil. But I fear that if we want not just to take action against Isil but to defeat them and prevent their return, it offers a better chance of succeeding than David Cameron’s proposal today. 

Stewart Wood is a former Shadow Cabinet minister and adviser to Ed Miliband. He tweets as @StewartWood.